Linux-Advocacy Digest #402, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Browsers and e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Browsers and e-mail ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Browsers and e-mail ("Tim Cain")
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! (Chris Lee)
Which OS is WORST? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Programs for Linux (Stu)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Perry Pip)
Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (proculous)
Re: Which OS is WORST? (Streamer)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Donn Miller)
Shithead Distribution? (proculous)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Tom Hanlin")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 02:13:52 GMT
On Thu, 04 May 2000 13:40:19 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Damien from alt.destroy.microsoft; 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT
>>Is there any way to change the system to
>>make it save into the older formats by default?
>Depends on the program. I haven't seen Office 2000 yet, but in Office 97, I
>think all three (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) finally have this feature.
"Finally?" They've been able to since they were first offered as
Office.
>Not that it is really anywhere near as functional as you would imagine. The
>applications don't, for instance, register themselves as servers for the older
>file types.
Since the file types have not changed, this is wrong.
>So even though they can read the file, and the extension is the
>same, any program other than the Operating System that tries to launch a file
>as an embedded object and the like will fail.
Also wrong.
>I would guess that this is
>excused with claims that it allows alternate applications to support older
>file types, but that doesn't wash, as none of Microsoft's applications are
>capable of co-existing with older versions very well in any other way.
And you would guess wrong, since your guess is based on something
incorrect to begin with.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:24:30 +1000
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3915a528@news...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8f3934$o11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No, it probably doesn't. Even in this particular case, all the OS is
> doing
> > is fetching and executing another application - the scripting host - to
> > execute a script. The script *is* a document.
>
> Right. And as I've said in other parts of this thread, and "document" file
> should be passed to the registered application, and it should be up to the
> application to provide security. Which simply proves how irresponsible the
> VB scripting host is. Java doesn't do this type of thing.
Java most certainly would do this sort of thing, executing outside of the
sandbox (which is what it would be doing).
[snip happens]
> > > The worst that could happen is the associated program won't recognize
> the
> > > file format if there is something wrong with it. Why does it have to
> warn
> > me
> > > about gif and jpeg files, when it's already opened them and shown them
> to
> > me
> > > in the preview window? It just blurs the line between ordinary
> attachments
> > > and dangerous ones.
> >
> > Because detecting a "dangerous" attachment is nigh on impossible. Best
to
> > be suspicious of *everything*.
>
> ...everything that can be executed, anyway.
Technically .vbs files aren't executed, they're interpreted.
It is not the mailer's responsibility to keep track of every different
filetype and whether or not a given one is dangerous. I would have though a
*nix user would be horrified at the very thought of such a thing.
> > > Not very well thought out, if you ask me.
> >
> > If people read and took heed of warnings, this wouldn't have happened.
> > Indeed, if this had happened on Unix systems with an attached script
file
> > and a bunch of instruction telling the users to save it, set it
executable
> > and run it, the exact same dumb users would have done it.
>
> Yes, but it would not have done nearly the damage, because such a script
> would not (unless the user were running as root) have been able to set
> itself up to automatically start on bootup, or access any central
"registry"
> ('cause there is none) or diddle with any system files.
However, it still would have been able to read the user's address list and
mail itself off to whomever was in it. IOW, it would have been able to do
the same damaging things.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 02:10:27 GMT
On 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
>Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>turn the upgrade treadmill?
Because certain of the new features (which are what new customers are
buying the software for) require the new format.
>Is there any way to change the system to
>make it save into the older formats by default?
Yep.
>And why aren't these
>file formats backwards compatible?
They are -- Office 2000 can read the older formats.
Or are you seriously suggesting that the older software be capable of
reading a format which did not even exist when it was released?
>Any decent file format would have
>an extensible design making new versions automatically compatible with
>older versions.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:32:23 +1000
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1. Get out a clue stick and *cough*re-educate*cough* people who open
> > attachments they know nothing about.
>
> Microsoft is the responsible party for making attachments so common.
Huh ? How an earth can you possible justify a ridiculous position like that
? Why would attachments be any less common if something like Unix was the
dominant system ?
Indeed, given the screwing around an end user would have to do to share
files with another end user over the network, a more logical conclusion
would be attachments would be *more* common.
> If they'd just live with real standards instead of making the IT world
> forward Word documents...
?
I'm having trouble thinking of a quicker, more efficient and less painless
way of sharing small files between different people than email attachments.
> Looking at this situation from someone who grew up with networks, it's
> obvious that the corporate computer companies are to blame here. Who
> would have known that CNN would be rporting the latest virus, back in
> the BBS days of the 80s. We had virii back then too, but it was
> limited to those who downloaded untrused binaries. People
> communicated with language (text); it would have been an insult to
> post "some thoughts" (or a loveletter..) as an attachment.
And quickly passing off a jpeg to a half dozen of your friends spread over a
few different BBSes was nowhere near as quick and easy, either.
> These companies like to make everything "easy" to do.
Yes, that's because that's what their customers *want* them to do.
> Just plug it
> in, and email your attachments. I vote that we re-educate the users
> by stripping off all attachments on the SMTP servers...
Yes, let's go back to punch cards and batch jobs as well. This whole
interactive use thing is vastly overrated.
> > 2. Get your sysadmin to distribute a little registry patch to make the
> > default action of a .vbs file to "Edit" instead of "Open". Have said
patch
> > installed during a login script.
>
> Kludge.
Eh ? How so ? It does exactly what many people have suggested would be a
better alternative - ie make the default action edit the script instead of
run it.
> What if it had been a .exe? Would you still reccomend this action?
An executable and a script are two very different things.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:35:14 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8f4idc$2tea$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8f447q$dhl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Great, so how are you going to allow users to execute their safe,
approved
> >scripts ?
>
> This is well understood and generally handled correctly in browser
> downloaded java applets - it isn't simple but the work had been
> done and there is not much of an excuse for ignoring it. Things
> received by email are even less trustworthy than things from
> a web site you choose to visit.
A sandbox is a problem when you have legitimate scripts that want to
manipulate files, address books and the like.
> >> Firstly, it shouldn't display a warning when opening a .avi file or a
.doc
> >> file without embedded executable content.
> >
> >So you also want the mail program to know enough about filetypes (like
> >.docs) to go scanning through them for dangerous content. Fantastic.
>
> It should either know the difference between programs that display
No, it shouldn't. Knowing details of different filetypes is not a mailer's
job. Indeed, such a thing would be a maintenance and bloat nightmare.
> content and those that let the content take control and only issue
> warnings for the latter, or it should only hand off to programs
> that understand safe sandbox execution like java applets. I think
> the percentage of people fooled would have been substantially
> less if the vbscript execution knew it was running untrusted
> content and warned the user before each file operation.
Again, how is the sciprting program supposed to know the script is untrusted
? From it's perspective, it's running a *user approved* script.
> >I strongly diagree. I don't want to have to go screwing around in the
> >registry just so I can have mpegs or avis automatically play when I
double
> >click them. Or for opening .txt and .c files.
>
> And malicious file deletions? Remember that it is not particularly
> difficult to spoof email.
How is the scripting program supposed to know a given file deletion is
malicious ?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 12:39:18 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8f5628$db0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> So, OK, what's the answer? I think we all agree that something like the
> >> "ILOVEYOU" virus will continue to happen in increasing frequency. How
do
> >> you stop it? You can't keep arresting 14 year olds everytime this
> >> happens, you have to decide that security is important.
>
> > 1. Get out a clue stick and *cough*re-educate*cough* people who open
> > attachments they know nothing about.
>
> When did the definition of "open" suddenly switch from "read" to
> "execute"? Suppose you recieved a letter through snailmail that read
> "burn the house down". If you did things like Outlook did things, you'd
> torch your house without question. However, you'd set it aside because
> you wouldn't follow suggestions that come unknown sources.
"Open" in GUIs like Windows, MacOS, KDE etc is a synonym for "activate"
<whateveritis>. It's one of the main functionality aspects of such GUIs -
abstracting away the idea of an application.
> > 2. Get your sysadmin to distribute a little registry patch to make the
> > default action of a .vbs file to "Edit" instead of "Open". Have said
patch
> > installed during a login script.
>
> This doesn't fix the underlying problem that BillWare likes to execute
> unknown code without telling anybody. You don't pick up objects on the
> sidewalk and pop them into your mouth, do you? Your operating system and
> applications shouldn't be doing the equivelent.
IT DOESN'T AUTO ACTIVATE. This has been said so many times already I have a
hard time believing you aren't aware of it. There is no "underlying
problem" of automatic execution because IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
------------------------------
From: "Tim Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 03:50:02 +0100
Boris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:JqdR4.163$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Given the nature of both systems, i.e. the normalcy of receiving data
> > from unknown origins, shouldn't e-mail have the same restrictions and
> > safety precautions that browsers have?
> I use IE5/OE5 on Win2000. And most security settings in OE are inherited
from IE. For
> example, if I disabled ActiveX controls in IE and opened HTML post on news
group, and that
> message contains ActiveX control, that control won't be able to execute.
>
> Boris
I agree that forcing the user to save the attachment is A Good Thing.
But, would it be possible to go one step further in protecting said dolt,
by doing some kind of scan on the attachment to derive it's intent?
ie. Warnings that say: "This attachment will delete files,
access your mail list, send emails" etc???
I dunno, there's so many scripting languages kicking around, that it's
probably a non-starter...
Regards,
Tim.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Date: 8 May 2000 02:50:24 GMT
In article <o8gR4.187726$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>[... long incoherent screed unceremoniously snipped ...]
>
>> Do so without fear of viruses as the basic
>> structure of Linux doesn't allow installation nor execution of
>> programs without the prior approval of root on my system. Root has to
>> be involved before a program is installed or declared runnable in my
>> user account.
>
>Get real, Charlie. I'm supposed to call a sysadmin before I can run a
simple
>script? And what is she going to do? Inspect it first, to make sure it's
>okay? And, God help us, what if I actually _write_a_program_? You know, one
>that needs to be compiled? I can compile it, but then I have to call the
>sysadmin every time I want to test it?
If it's *NOT* your personal machine damn right.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Which OS is WORST?
Reply-To: the shittter
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 03:10:52 GMT
Linux of course....It sucks so bad, has no usable applications and is
truely a nostaglic trip back into how computing was done in the 1970's
Green screen city dude..... In short, we are not interested...
Take your shit operating system somewhere else.
Windows rulllezzz dude's.....And don't you forget it!!!!
------------------------------
From: Stu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 03:21:18 GMT
Go to http://www.freshmeat.net and do a search, everything you listed is there.
Stu
Nick wrote:
> Hello all, to start off, I'd like to tell you what this is about. I am a
> certified Linux Admin, and I have several
> issues about programs for Linux that I would like to talk about. Just to
> clarify to all of the dull-brained argumentative people (you know who you
> are): I am using Windows to write this.
>
> I like Linux, I think it's the coolest OS in the world, however any OS needs
> programs to make it popular. If I was just going to be an Internet Junkie,
> Linux is fine. I can listen to my multimedia files, I can chat on ICQ, and I
> can surf the web. However, I can not do the productive things I want to do.
>
> First off, I want to be able to do lots of CAD, and I want to use my CAD
> work to design electronic devices. Print blueprints... et cetera.
>
> Another thing I would like to is Advanced 3D modeling and other 3D imaging.
> Perhaps I want to make a model of something I want to build, or make a 3D
> computer-animated cartoon.
>
> I want to compose MIDI files. Nuff said.
>
> I want to use IEEE 1394 to edit videos.
>
> I want to make Employee Identification Cards with a plastic card printer.
> Just like the one they have at the local YMCA to make member cards.
>
> If you know of some post-development applications that can do these things,
> tell us all!!!
> You can email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If not, guys and gals, we need to get busy programming!
>
> --NSC--
> _The Liquid Linux Project_
>
> Posted on: alt.linux, alt.os.linux, alt.os.linux.caldera,
> alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux, comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> comp.os.linux.questions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Browsers and e-mail
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 03:16:57 GMT
On Mon, 8 May 2000 12:32:23 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>An executable and a script are two very different things.
>
A script *is* an executable. At least it is that way on my system.
Although an executable is not necessarily a script.
Perry
------------------------------
From: proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 23:08:26 -0400
The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
system.
Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
to operate correctly.
Is this what you call a next generation OS?
What generation is that? The year 2025?
Shitty looking fonts under X windows,
Netscape?
Netscape sucks under Windows also. NOBODY uses Netscape.
Security?
Every fucking port is WIDE OPEN WITH A DEFAULT MANDRAKE INSTALL...GOOD
SHOW!!!!!
Just setting up a simple network with a secure firewall has led me
down a garden path of no less than 10 poorly written How-to's and a
trek to numerous websites for information much of which is either
outdated or in conflict with the last website I visited.
Example, try the FAQ link on the samba website. It is a dead
link...Great show guys..
Apache seems to have been hacked, as I doubt they run Microsoft Back
Office.
Tasks that are soooooo easy under Windows are a nightmare under Linux.
Networking for example....
A couple of clicks and it works under Windows. How is this even
remotely possible under Linux?
Quite frankly I really don't give a flying fuck because Linux has
pissed me of so much with it's archaic style of doing things that I
intend to let every single person I know the truth about Linux and
spread the word that LINUX SUX to all that will listen.
It really does suck the big Onion.....
PROCULOUS
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 22:33:48 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote <nothing notable>
^^^^^^
Your name says it all!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 23:33:36 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
proculous wrote:
> The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
> the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
> system.
I think Windows 98 is a virus; that's why I tossed it off my system.
Windows is the virus -- virii typically go around screwing with the
MBR (without you knowing about it), and that's what Windows does.
Therefore, Windows == Virus.
> Steve really does suck the big Onion.....
Yep.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Shithead Distribution?
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 23:33:46 -0400
I am trying to run Linux on an 8088 computer with a 300 baud modem and
5 megabyte hard disk. I have been told about a distribution of Linux
called Shithead. I can't seeem to locate this anywhere on the net?
Could some kind soul offer assistance?
Sincerely,
Rashsis "711" Desert- Dweller
------------------------------
From: "Tom Hanlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 03:59:13 GMT
On 7-May-2000, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
> Or are you seriously suggesting that the older software be capable of
> reading a format which did not even exist when it was released?
Actually, this is a perfectly reasonable idea, and is not that difficult to
implement. The old software may not be able to take advantage of every new
feature, but it can reasonably be expected to degrade gracefully-- say,
displaying text in a default font instead of using the unknown new feature.
This is a common technique for software designed to be robust, as opposed to
badly-designed software, or software that is designed to force you to
upgrade...
--
Thomas G. Hanlin III, Programmer At Large
home: http://www.tgh3.com - programming tools & libraries, games and things
work: http://www.powerbasic.com - DOS & Windows BASIC compilers & tools
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 00:05:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 08 May 2000 02:13:52 GMT
>On Thu, 04 May 2000 13:40:19 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
>
>>Quoting Damien from alt.destroy.microsoft; 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT
>
>>>Is there any way to change the system to
>>>make it save into the older formats by default?
>
>>Depends on the program. I haven't seen Office 2000 yet, but in Office 97, I
>>think all three (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) finally have this feature.
>
>"Finally?" They've been able to since they were first offered as
>Office.
This is inaccurate. Word 2.0 was available in Office, and did not have the
ability to save into older formats by default. Investigating whether all
other Microsoft applications in Office supported that feature at specific
points in the past I will leave to you, Lord Weasel.
>>Not that it is really anywhere near as functional as you would imagine. The
>>applications don't, for instance, register themselves as servers for the older
>>file types.
>
>Since the file types have not changed, this is wrong.
"Word document" is not the same file type as "Word 6.0/7.0 Document" nor
"Word97" document. The file extensions haven't changed. The file types are
listed separately in the registry, whether the file structures have or not.
>>So even though they can read the file, and the extension is the
>>same, any program other than the Operating System that tries to launch a file
>>as an embedded object and the like will fail.
>
>Also wrong.
Oh really?
>>I would guess that this is
>>excused with claims that it allows alternate applications to support older
>>file types, but that doesn't wash, as none of Microsoft's applications are
>>capable of co-existing with older versions very well in any other way.
>
>And you would guess wrong, since your guess is based on something
>incorrect to begin with.
Whatever.
***ZZZZZZZZZ***
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 00:07:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 08 May 2000 02:10:27 GMT
>On 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
>
>>Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>>new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>>turn the upgrade treadmill?
>
>Because certain of the new features (which are what new customers are
>buying the software for) require the new format.
Care to back this up with some particular examples, or are you just assuming
it must be true because it is what Microsoft tells you?
>>And why aren't these
>>file formats backwards compatible?
>
>They are -- Office 2000 can read the older formats.
Guffaw.
>Or are you seriously suggesting that the older software be capable of
>reading a format which did not even exist when it was released?
Yea, kinda like WordPerfect 5.1 could almost ten years ago. And most HTML
documents.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 00:08:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 08 May 2000 02:06:06 GMT
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:03:27 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
>
>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:10:13 GMT
>
>>>If I thought you were a person of honour, [...]
>
>>Well, you don't. So quit wasting my time.
>
>Once again, I do not post for your benefit, liar.
Then why is it me you seem intent on boring to death?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
